Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-06-07


miitee has not the power TO take away the
authority given the City Engineer. so the
question came 10 the Council as to whether
the City Engineer was TO have appointing
power Subject to the approval oil the COM
mittee) or the committee.
Mr.. Kebdler, the chairman OF the COM
mittee, said that the committee bad seen III
TO charge its rules after the work had pro-
gressed. He did not intend to say the CITY
Attorney was wrong, but he certainly
thor ght that The committee, " It had rignt
to appoint, certainly had right to take away
such power.
Mr.. PiZzini, 2 member Of the committee,
offered the following resolution, which Is
adverse to the City Attorneys position:
BE IT resolUed by the Council OF the
City Of Richmond tthe Board Of Aldermen
concurring), That II Is the sense Of this
body that section 4, chapter los, OF the
city ordinances concerning a new city ball
means that the Committee on Grounds and
Buildings has supreme direction OF the
building OF new city ball, and subject to
their instructions the City Engineer has
control OF the construction OF the building.
Mr.. PiZzini spoke at length after be Of
fered his resolution.
He said that whilst he was fully aware OF the
fact that other councilmen moved in the direc
ion Of obtaining new City Hall before he
had been In a position 10 do 20 he claimed that
its construction became possible At the time II
did mainly through his efforts, and that there
fore, without egOtism, he can claim 10 be Its
patI on and its closest friend.
The report Of the Committe on Grounds and
Buildings presents question which has been In
one form or another forclE 10 the ntion
OF the committee since the first spadeful OF
earth was thrown on the City-Hall lot, and II Is
deemed Of sufficient importance 70 be brought
to your attention.
The question is to so regulate the appoint
ments Of foremen &C, az 10 prevent, as far as
possible, any cause for criticism or dssatisfac-
tiOn among the people. To accomplish this
the resolution presented tonight was adopted,
and IL resulted In a difference Of opinion be-
tween the city officials and your committee.
The resolution as drawn Is very vague and
fsulty-in fact, so much so as to make IL ab-
surd but held that no such resolution was
necessary; that the original resolution passed
by the committee. 20 which this one was In
tended as an amendment was Illegal and void
that the committee had no authority TO dele
gate its powers even TO subcommittee OF its
own mem hers, much loss TO an Official 10 the
city's elIplOy; that IL was supreme In all mat
ters appertaining TO the building, and had
complete direction OF the work in the full
sense OF the word, and could issue its instruc-
tions 10 its subordinates with power TO compel
obedience. The City Engineer claimed that
all responsibility was vested in him that the
committee possessed a supervising power, and
THAI the people did not regard the committee
at all, but held him aleRe responsible for the
success or failure Of the new City Hall that In
after years, "a was the case with the City
Water Works, the committee would not be
thought OF In cOnpectios with the matter At all.
In accordance with this supposed authority
the City Engineer has made changes In the
plans Of the building; has purchased many
thousands Of dollars worth OF supplies-al
without previously consulting the committee
which will say is more authority than would
be assumed by any other Official Of the city
government. The committee submitted the
resolution, at the Engineers request, 70 the
City Attorney for an opinion, and IL ac-
companies the committees report, and cor
roborates the Engineers opinien aud
places the committee In secondary
position and elevates the Engineer into
The master Of the situation, but Mr.. Chair
man, this view Of the case was not In my Iudg-
ment correct. and was fraught with too much
danger TO be established as precedent
think due Difference should be given the City
Engineer; his opinions and views should be
submitted TO the committee and should have
due weight and consideration, but TO give him
absolute power In the construction OF the build
ing was more than the ordinance granted and
more than one man is entitled 10 under our
system OF government.
The whole gist OF the question, Mr.. Chair
man, lies in the proper definition OF the words
under the direction Of" and control" and
the relative power which should be given to
them.
Webster says:
DIRECTION: 1.-THE oct Of directing" rsgu-
lating. guarding, ordering.
CONTROL: To exercise Restraining influence,
10 restrain, 10 govern.
Comparing the power OF the words, he Gays
and II cts this case exactly: Control is mega
tive, denoting power OF restraint DIRECTIONS
are commands containing instructions how 10
act. Command Is positive, implying right TO
enforce obedience"
Could language be clearerf Could section
4 Of chapter 10s have been drawn clearer def
ming the relative positions Of the committee and
the Engineer than II does? leave you 10 an
swsT
In conclusion. let me say that whilst have
been and am prepared TO sustain tho City En-
gineer in almost every recommendation he
has made or will make, at tho same time feel
that the responsibility and authority OF the
peoples representatives. should be paramount,
and ] therefore ask you 10 adopt the resolution
which have presented.
Mr. Cutchins said il seemed TO him that
the City Engineer bad the general direc-
ton Of the work Of the City Hall and tat
the committee occupied sort OF advisory
positiou. De favored standing by the
opinion Of the City Attorney.
Mr.. kaufman was prepared TO vote for
The resolution offered by Mr.. PizZini. lie
believed that the City Engineer was a sub
ordinate officer and under the direction of
the ommi;tee on Grounds and Buildings.
Mr. COnnor said he was glad the commit
tee saw it. error in appointing the City En-.
eineer 10 the authority be held on the city
Hall work, and that II now sought redress
before the Council.
Mr. Hayes said be was not In favor OF
taking the power away from the City Engi-
peer until the cause was properly shown.
He did not believe that this change was TO
be made because the City Engineer was not
adheriDg to the plans OF the City Hall or
that he had acceded his authority in pur-
chasing supplies. For three or four months
he had been trying 10 scale the Chinese
wall which had been erected around the
Committee on Grounds and Buildings, but
he bad not succeeded. He would not vote
to remove the City Engineers authority un-
less due cause was shown. "We are only
hearing one side OF this case now; beside.
the city OF Richmond will not look TO tie
committee in regard to the building when
finished. but to the City Engineer"
Mr.. Pizzini said the committee was onl'
asking what its authority amounted 10.
The committee did not prefer any charge
against Colonel Cutshaw the supplies
bought had to be gotten, but the commit.
tee should have directed the purchase and
where The purchase should be MADE. In
reply TO Mr.. Ilayes's question. "liow did
he know changes had been made in the CITY
Hall plans Z" be would answer, he knew
changes had been made because the archi
tect had told him so, because Colonel Cut
shaw acknowledged be had, and when ask
ed why he did it, said he did not thlnk Il
was necessary.
Mr.. Archer was in favor OF Colonel Cut
shaw retaining the power which had been
given him.
Mr.. Murphy said the opinion about the
City Attorney was diametrlcally opposed 10
an opinion which had been rendered by
him some time ago. He thought the CITY
Attorney rendered the opinion In partisan
spirit He favored the resolution offered
by Mr.. Pizzini.
Mr. Bryan 'aid be was not ready to vote
either one way or the other, because he was
not sufficiently familiar with the subject or
the bearings on either side. He was not
member OF the Grounds and Buildings
Committee, and he hoped he never
would be. He desired TO say Incl
denially that II the gentleman from
Jefferson Ward who had Just spoken
would couple little proof with bis re-
marks they would carry more weight.
when it comes TO saying" exclaimed
Mr.. Bryan, "that the City Attorney, who
is respected by the citizens OF Richmond
and the Council, had allowed partisan feel